| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T174516.20170113 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 13 January 2017 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1745/16 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 11706712.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07K 16/22 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Anti-angiogenesis therapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | "Missing statement of grounds" | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the examining division of 26 November 2015 refusing the European patent application No. 11 706 712.4. The decision was posted on 5 February 2016 and duly received by the applicant (hereinafter "the appellant").
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 14 March 2016 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. The Registry of the board informed the appellant by a communication of 27 July 2016, which it duly received, that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.
IV. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rules 126(2) and 131 EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC and
Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
